The title is more aimed at being clickbait than attempting to be informative.
The only thing in the underlying article is that specific neural networks are good and efficient at producing approximate solutions to large sparse systems of linear equations. Nothing else.

Such big systems of equations result when you try to solve partial differential equations on a finite-element mesh by substituting a lot of base functions.

There are broadly 2 ways of solving such systems: direct (e.g. using the sweep method) or iteratieve. The neural networks are just a way of implementing the iterative method. The only thing interesting is that the specific neural networks proposed to do this can be calculated efficiently (also energy-efficiently) on specific hardware optimised specifically for that flacour of neural network.

The OP post tries to link 'math' and 'AI' here because, well, partial diffferential equations count as 'math', and neural networks are a form of 'AI', right? And that's how the OP 'justifies' its title.

Sorry folks, but his is a highly technical development which in no way merits the hoo-hah the OP throws at it.

Personally I find this explanation (the first link of the OP) quite clear and accessible (non-technical): https://www.sciencealert.com/f...
In summary: you can sustain denser plasma's if you can precisely control the way your plasma is started. That's useful because it helps your reactor reach a break-even point between energy cost (to make, maintain, and contain the plasma) and the amount of energy the plasma emits during its existence.

No they aren't. By your logic, any resistors in an electronic circuit would also be a 'bad idea' (which they aren't).
Tariffs add costs to imports. That cost increase is merely an instrument which can be used stupidly, indiscriminately, and inappropriately (like the Trump tariffs) or appropriately. As with any cost-structure adjustment, for it to have any impact at all, there must be positive effects for some and negative effects for others. Depending on your objectives the benefit can absolutely outweigh the cost.
Take the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism for example: it penalises any (steel) imports with excessive carbon emissions (e.g. from older coal-based production plants) compared to steel produced through more modern and less polluting processes.
What that does is to internalise external costs in order to clean up certain production processes.
Now why would that be a bad idea? (oh, and don't bother to reply if you only argument is that 'da gubbamint' shouldn't intervene in markets at all or if you feel that CO2-footprint reduction is either unnecessary or should only be done at zero marginal cost.)

I just hope that Mr. Trump and his advisors realise that this enactment of the Monroe doctrine implies that
(a) Asia is now China's backyard and Europe is Russia's (A deal is a deal, right?)
(b) national sovereignty has now become a lot more conditional (by common agreement).

By consequence, anyone who wants an uninterrupted supply of chips from TSMC had better be prepared to be extremely polite to China within a few years.

Apparently Europe is working to correct its mistakes and take back control of its strategic production lines. Just like the US.
Problem is: Europe's got a lot of ground to cover, they don't have a single government, and they're less prone to use import tariffs as a blunt instrument in every trade dispute.
Perhaps because they have more to lose and can inflict less pain on their trade partners than the US can.

Agreed. And well done to the EU for enforcing their own privacy laws.

I think this also proves that the comments one sometimes hears in US media (and certain political circles) to the effect that the EU is supposedly going after US companies, are nonsense.

Well, there are a number historical reasons for why Europe relied on the US for its defence and why the US was totally OK with that.

(1) Europe doesn't exist as a nation: it's like the US (states) without a federal government. That means it doesn't have an integrated defense industry or an army, which in turn means it doesn't have the economies of scale that enable the US to be a superpower. For a very long time this was considered to be in the US interest. US leadership was unquestioned, which had its use. Take e.g. the industrial side of the F16 and F35 fighter planes: those benefited (and continue to benefit) quite a lot from European clientele. The same holds for other types of weaponry. We're talking about 80 bln. in arms sales in 2023 and about 97 bln in 2024 to US allies (see e.g. here: https://www.state.gov/fiscal-y... and here https://www.defense.gov/News/N... ). Arms sales don't exist in a vacuum: it also represents a buy-in in the US as a partner.

(2) For the entire period from 1945 to the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the US and Europe had this bargain: the US provides the military-industrial muscle and the nuclear umbrella, Europe provides the battlefield, about half the manpower, a robust first line of defense plus 100% of civillian casualties in anything but an intercontinental nuclear war. The US had a very clear interest in this tate of affairs, like e.g. keeping the USSR bottled up in a land-locked environment without practical (non-blockable) ice-free ports en a big counterweight to USSR expansion.

(3) For that reason the US had (for that period) been very much against Europe getting anything like a European army or an integrated arms industry. All that changed only when it realised that China had become an economic and military rival. With the Warsaw pact disbanded and Russia no longer a threat, US interests in Europe became more diluted and its commitments there more of a burden.

(4) Europe is indeed ramping up its spending, but there is of course a lead time (of 5-10 years or so) before it can get its 'own' military up to scratch. Withdrawing support before that time means risking Russian expansion once again. That could be an issue if Russia e.g. regains the industrial muscle and mineral resources of the Ukraina.

(5) Currently the situation is that the US has put Europe on notice to get a move on with financing its own defense needs and those of teh Ukraine. And this is having an effect already. Just for the record, US aid to the Ukraine is about 183 bln. by the end of 2024 ehile the EU has contributed slightly more than 50% of all military aid to the Ukraine to date (see e.g. here: https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... ). There is more to be done, but the figures mentioned by pres. Trump are outright misleading (as usual).

(6) It goes without saying that this development will (over the next 10 years or so) lessen US influence in that part of the world. With that withdrawal of influence there may also be a shrinkage of available military bases, and with it the ability to 'project power' abroad. That in its turn will further contribute to lessening US influence in the world. Whether or not this is desirable is another question, but I think it should be factored into any strategic decision makeing (which in my opionion currently is not the case).

Agreed, to a certain extent.

As I see it, the reason for going to school and acquiring skills such as how to do mathematics and/or how to write clearly and coherently is training the LLM that resides inside our skull. I think that the process of learning something makes you better at learning in general, which then applies to other things as well.

The question is: is it beneficial to learn how to use your brains? That would depend on who or what you want to be. Some people can be very successful being e.g. an Instagram celebrity or an 'Influencer', where being able to spell or do maths just isn't relevant.

On the other hand, I think that people with academic qualifications like being able to spell, write, and do maths can make better use of an LLM than most others who are deficient in that respect.

Of course that's a testable hypothesis. I curious as to how that turns out.

The real problem is that cryptocurrencies are a shitty technology. Ledger transactions are 4-5 orders of magnitude more expensive than traditional monetary transactions – they aren't "currencies" at all. They are long-hold assets at best.

Exchanges like FTX/Binance came along to paper over that shittiness with off-ledger transactions. But it's a scammer's paradise and moreover it violates the whole point of crypto which is to not have to trust a central authority.

The board apparently decided that no progress was the safest kind of progress. So they nuked the company. Threat eliminated.

At the risk of stating the obvious, most users don't care about app store choice, and never will. The only app store they'll ever use is the one that came with the device. Most people don't have an ideological axe to grind on things like this. They just want their $2 Candy Crush app with as little fiddling as possible.

Regulators can do whatever they want but economics wins out in the end. The app stores are natural monopolies.

I don't see this as anything more than a simple business decision. Twitch feels that certain types of content will hurt their brand, so they disallow that content. It's all just dictated by the social norms of the moment.

These rankings are predicated on a flawed idea that has been disproven empirically: That certain "selective" colleges give one a better education, and lead to better career outcomes. The data show that choice of undergraduate institution has almost no impact on a person's eventual career success; that correlates with one's choice of major, and how hard one studies in college. (The same isn't true of graduate institutions, where there is some evidence that institution does have a small impact on career outcomes.)

To be blunt, the value that a selective college provides to students is mostly as a reputation filter later on. Getting a degree from school X becomes a shorthand for "I was selected out through a highly competitive process" that sticks with you. It's a badge.

Given that, the only rankings that would make sense would be based on admissions selectivity. The schools with the lowest accept rates float to the top.

Google's position makes perfect sense to me. ChatGPT comes across as a well-informed bullshitter. Most of the time it's correct, but it often isn't, and either way it states everything with absolute confidence. From a user perspective it's both incredibly impressive and not super useful. Perhaps more narrowly-defined AIs like Github Copilot are more immediately useful as products.

People have also figured out how easy it is to prompt ChatGPT (and probably any similar large language model) to psychopathic responses of all kinds: How to exterminate race X, how to destroy civilization, and how to rape women and get away with it, to name a few that I've seen. No public company would wade into that PR nightmare.